Rumpole
Diamond Member
- Mar 20, 2023
- 2,946
- 2,337
- 1,928
the salient point was, 'espionage does not depend on any classification regime'. The other item was anecdotal and not important to the rebuttal. Please focus on the salient point, and I'll avoid offering you anecdotal items in the future, given your propensity to pettifog on them.Your cult did that assessment over two years ago. Does it give you a clue that they haven't released the results of their assessment? Just a little one?
Your cheap shots destroy your credibility. I cannot, therefore, take you seriously. But, I'll address your point, anyway: it is apparently the policy of the DOJ not to prosecute exec branch staff for mere possession (no doubt because of the commonality of the occurrences, as Reagan, North, Poindexter, Pence, and others, had them) and so they prosecute for aggravated circumstances. The only person having aggravated circumstances is Trump, who obstructed the government's effort to have them returned. We have video tape, witness testimony, etc., confirming this fact, not to mention Trump's public announcement, on several occasions that he has 'the right to do with them whatever he pleases' which is false, as the PRA he cites says precisely the opposite. No president in history got it so wrong on the law, not to mention the EO that governs it, as well.And your senile cult leader hid his caches of classified docs. More docs than Trump had. But the cult leader's DOJ gives him a pass. You doin't think that will be issue at trial?
Weasel words/rant words are not merit worthy arguments. To improve your argument, give a link and a quote to clarify the point you are attempting. Thank you.How about the fact that the National Archive told Trump to go fuck himself when he asked for help with his WH documents.
You've got stugotz.